Yeah, I was going to make note that I was linking to a site that contains many different authors, editors, and third party articles all on their site. Forgot to mention it.
LRC definitely has a political bend to it. So do doctors suing their patients for expressing their right to speak freely.
Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.
It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.
I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.
I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.
I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.
First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.
I fully blame parents' inability to lord over their kids 24/7 as government's fault.
Households pay 50% in taxes at every level, versus 8% in the 60s. Mom has to work so the household can earn less still than just Dad working in the 60s (versus Mom and Dad to be PC).
Parents who spend through debt to keep up with the Joneses are still at fault. You CAN monitor your kids' activities 24/7, you just don't want to.
It does not take a village to raise a child; it takes a village to tax a household to death.
Then I realized my parent post already dismissed your opinions, at least in my opinion.
First, this law won't make parents more responsible. Will Little Johnny ask mom to buy the game, or ask Big Brother Billy or Older Friend Paul?
I do t ink this bill adds overhead to businesses that can't absorb the cost. Retailers now need to police games better out of Hot Coffee fears. They need to take register time to check IDs and slow down traffic. They need to police their own employees to make sure they're obeying the legal directives.
Want to bet the law isn't clearly worded? Hiring a business law lawyer is $300/hour, bet its more in California.
I can forsee many more added costs the more I ponder.
In my town, teens pay upwards of $10/pack for cigarettes. 21 year olds get up to $50 to make liquor runs for high school parties. The teen black market is very lucrative.
My firm belief is that this is the responsibility of the parents, not the State. Parents now have even less involvement in parenting due to these laws. Kids will still get the games.
The margin on video games is thin (5-10%). Adding the cost of policing adds another burden to the retailers, making them less competitive with the e-commerce sites. retail is a huge portion of a local economy, it is a shame to see more regulations on business owners.
Of course, in the long run the State wins: More tax money for enforcement positions and the red tape jobs they add. Added income from fines and penalties.
In the end, the consumers suffer, parents distance themselves more from their responsibility, and the State profits. Not a worthy solution in my opinion.
While Rand had some interesting ideas, so did Clinton and Bush at times.
I don't believe in the use of force by anyone against anyone else except in the direct defense of one's property or person. To me, taxation is force, and I just can't understand why laws are necessary at the federal level.
I'm not advocating shutting down ALL government (yet), just the federal level. It is my firm belief that the State-Countries that will be left will be MUCH more competitive for their constituents, and continued disassembly of lower level governments may not even be necessary.
Sure, my dream world is one without regulations and taxes, but I know it won't happen. There are so many ways of living below the radar and through the black markets (we all do with certain parts of our daily lives) and I've been walked on more by government than ever by thieves or conmen. Most of you are in the same boat, but just refuse to see it.
I guess I should be part of the system, keep voting for more and more stupid pork projects such as this. Enough pork will likely bankrupt the country, and I'll be safe with my gold and my property and my gun. After complete collapse, maybe then the people that survive will realize what a mistake they made.
Roads are indeed one of the hardest points for me to debate with even myself in terms of "who provides?"
As a multi-business owner, I can tell you that I'd rather be paying for the roads that come to my store from the highway, and I'd rather co-op it with other businesses by finding the BEST builder and maintainer of the roads. Today, we all pay hidden gas and other taxes for use of the roads, but the costs are crazy (I should know, I've worked for a highway contractor).
If we could should the average taxpayer what we pay in FEDERAL taxes per mile of driving, they'd be outraged.
I'll grant you the roads, this time, as a government responsibility, but how about we leave it up to the towns or maybe the precincts, rather than the State or Federal governments?
When it comes to constitutionality, it doesn't matter IF we need it, it doesn't matter WHY we need it, and it doesn't matter if the MAJORITY thinks we need it. The federal government has certain enumerated powers, and the rest is left to the States and the people.
Why can't private companies do it? $300M in every pork barrel program adds up quickly, and government just inflates more currency into creation whenever things get tight.
Our economy is heading to the gutter fast once the housing bubble bursts, and all these projects are part of the problem.
And some of those items took decades to make it. If they're going to keep certain government information in the Archives, make it available immediately.
I'm against the $300M bridge to nowhere -- I believe in privatized roads funded by local businesses, industry, and homeowners divisions.
I'm against ALL unconstitutional wars (every one since WWII has been unconstitutional).
Doesn't matter on slashdot, as any anti-social program post gets modded flamebait lately.
Nonetheless, I believe the "Why?" question should be asked before AND after the fact, continuously. I don't believe we should just roll over when the majority says its ok to tax-and-spend. I've met many people through slashdot who have come to agree with the non-authoritarian positions I've stated in the past, and I love the debates I usually get before I get modded down.
That's what/. is for -- honest and open debate from all 3 sides of an issue.
Is this even necessary? $308M is a lot of money (maybe not for our federal government, but for the average taxpayer) and this really seems to be a waste to tax and spend on a program that is better solved by private companies.
Will we need old information in digital format? How many old books have we needed to save that were better saved just by reprinting them? How much information will the future need, and is it important to save just about everything just for memory sake?
It just sounds like pork to me. Competitive pork, yes, but still pork. Our government has kept Lockheed afloat for decades.
I'm trying to find out where in our Constitution does the Federal Government find an enumerated power to pay for this. It is outrageous -- there are numerous companies out there already attempting to archive old data. Why does our government even care? I bet it has more to do with raising taxes, creating new taxpayers to be paid on the government dole, and increasing unemployment figures.
Similar to Hazlitt's Broken Window Fallacy, taxes are NOT good for creating wealth for the country. Instead, they create profit for certain select individuals and reduce wealth for everyone else.
Our elected officials continue to finance deficit spending, which will only make us taxpayers and the next generations poorer.
Three decent articles about the effects of regulations.
It is a very convoluted issue, but I can tell you from experience (in manufacturing and retail, both my businesses) that regulations OFTEN are created in order to help a hidden third party. In the skateboard business that I own, I see numerous stores lobbying towns for helmet laws. "Helmet laws were created because kids were dying without them" might be said 20 years from now, when we forget who the store was that sold the helmets.
This is why I read at 0 so I can find decent posts such as yours.
First, I've been to Nike's "sweatshops" and you'd be surprised how few employees consider it a sweatshop compared to starving and dying in a country with little opportunity. You would also be surprised how many ex-sweatshop employees saved enough money to move to another country with better opportunities.
People are not forced to do any job at gunpoint by Nike or by any other corporation. Yet I am forced to pay 1/2 my wages to a monopoly with the threat of prison. Who runs the sweatshop?
Nader does the job people need him to do with his watchdog group. With the Internet and viral-marketing campaigns, it isn't that hard to disperse information about bad companies, and it isn't that hard to keep track of companies real time. Underwriter's Laboratories is the ultimate free market watchdog group. They stamp items that meet their safety approval, and retailers don't stock non-UL merchandise if they know what is good for them. Why is the UL succesful, yet the FDA and USDA can't get anything right?
Sorry for the late post, I can generally only read from my PDA/GPRS and I couldn't reconnect.
You're generally right because we don't need arbitrators as much, but I do forsee a better arbitration based on e-bay and slashdot's karma.
First, arbitration companies and contract insurance can guarantee payment. If either or both parties have "bad karma" or "bad feedback" on previous contracts, the insurance will be higher, naturally. If they both have GOOD karma or good feedback, then the insurance will be lower. I'm sure numerous contract insurers will pop up, and I'm sure that good arbitration companies will also offer these policies at low rates.
Secondly, today's arbitration system is manipulated completely by those in law. The system is so convoluted that nothing gets resolved in a timely fashion or in a cheap manner. Even bounced checks are hard to enforce. In a free market, I would believe that people would have much less ability to repeatedly screw over others.
In the long run, I don't see any hope for our current monopoly on justice. You can't win unless you're wealthy. In a free market, even the poorest person will still be able to purchase contract insurance in the event that the other party screws them over, or in the event that they can't finish the contract.
The difference is that when its a business, competition eventually provides a safer product. Company A bends the rules and gets caught, Company B plays fair and grows.
With government, there IS no competition. They are a monopoly, and bending the rules leads to a few outcomes:
A. No one gets caught B. Someone gets caught, an elected official gets thrown out, and the new official comes in asking for more money to fix the problem. C. Someone gets caught, and new laws are created to "police the problem" with more red tape in the future for everyone.
I'm not sure that government is ever the answer once you factor in that they are not only a monopoly, but they can use force to enforce that monopoly.
I always seem to get modded troll based on my anti-socialist position.
First, my parents were the poorest people in my town. I didn't find wealth until I created it myself, without using any government grants or welfare dole.
Second, companies don't exist to make money. They exist to make wealth. There is a difference. Companies that offer wealth to their customers in the form of long term happiness in exchange for giving up their wealth of money, tend to prosper. Those who rip people off tend to fail. Also, a company has to make sure their employees see added wealth in exchange for their time, or they lose those good employees.
Birth defects from what? Who really knows what causes birth defects. Government flouride treatments cause defects and rotting teeth, but we support those. Government mandates scarcity in doctors and researchers in the form of regulation of colleges and grants, yet more doctors and researchers could find more cures for what ails us.
If one company profits on creating more death and birth defects, another company will find out about it and let you know. But if government profits on the same, they'll just ask for more money to combat what is obvious a "social problem."
Don't start touting government as the one-size-fits-all savior. We all would be far better off with far smaller government. Marx and Keynes were proven wrong years before they were even born, but it seems to be that opinions such as mine are irrelevant and troll-ful because the opinions exist and refute the ideaology of the average slashdotter.
Secondly, ALL risk review requires sickness and death. Otherwise, it wouldn't be considered risky.
To say that the market requires death before changes are made is ridiculous. How many people get sick, go hungry, or even die because of government regulations and taxes?
The free market creates wealth opportunities for everyone at every level. Government regulation and taxation creates profits for the rich and connected at the expense of the poor. No free market transaction forces the poor to give to the connected. None.
If you truly believe that government policies help the poor and the environment and the sick, read this article:
Come on, New Orleans? A city whose problems were grown more out of government incompetence than free market policy?
Want to rebuild New Orleans to be a Mecca of financial equity and help the impoverished become middle class? Create a 10-year lifting of all regulations and taxes.
You'll see entrepreneurs moving in and rebuilding. With today's rebuilding, it is all going to focus on wealth transfer from the responsible to the irresponsible. Government will add more people to the dole, and fewer people with actually desire to help the surrounding population will show up to do so.
Don't start on New Orleans. You know it is a problem created by bad government management at all levels, and the welfare state created the poverty that existed pre-Katrina.
Want to know what caused that deadly fire? Over-regulating. There are two ways to get around government regulations in the future to prevent these accidents:
1. Remove ALL regulations pertaining to fire code and let the INSURANCE companies dictate what is safe and what isn't. When fire becomes a financial burden, safety will go up. Businesses that don't insure are likely to go out of business with the smallest mishap or mistake. Removing government protection of individuals through the ridiculous thing called incorporation would also increase a person's fear of losing everything and would insure.
2. Let insurance companies realize the risk they face. Today, I can get business insurance over the phone. The insurance companies assume a certain amount of risk based on the "city code" that businesses are assumed to follow. Everyone knows you can get around city code with a little cash in the hand of the inspector.
If insurance companies have to set their own code, and also have to self inspect, you'll see more businesses run safer.
City code regulations only force competition from entering a market. The ones who have been there the longest tend to know the inspectors and tend to know how to work around it.
These "safety" regulations are also evident in speed limits (better set by insurance companies for risk reduction than by cities for income-through-tickets), food quality regulations, and even household safety/accident prevention.
"Government program fails to help taxed consumers."
"Law turns rare victims into frequent ones."
"Elected officials support their real constituents."
When has any regulation on industry regulated anyone but the non-business owner? All regulations are created for one reason: scarcity.
Government created scarcity increases profits by decreasing wealth. Regulations keep favored businesses safe from new competition.
There are many free market programs to reduce phone spam. On my cell, I create favored call lists and "everyone else." The everyone else ring tone is silent. If a voice mail confirms I missed a favored caller, I'll add them to the ring list.
No one needs any form of regulation from government at any level as they all create favoritism and don't fix any problem. Even pollution regulations are better controlled by the free market. Heavy polluters get blasted by watchdog groups, cleaner emitters get praised and consumers make the decision who succeeds and who fails.
The link to 'per se' is great. I type per se often only to remove it so I don't have to define it.
A government's ultimate task is to put ((relatively) minor) restrictions on the citizens (individual or all) for the benefit of the whole society.
I can't agree with Hobbes here. The country is better defined as billions of decisions made every minute. Most decisions made have no thinking of "is this legal?"
Society is benefited from these billions of decisions in that opportunities grow when decisions are made. Someone buying fruit, someone smoking a joint, someone mowing a lawn, someone raping a neighbor.
Which decisions promote growth of the society and which don't? The bad decisions are always regarding taking or breaking someone's property. Those decisions always reduced society's benefits. Every othet decision increases the benefits society gets. Crossing the street gives a risk taker the benefit of opening a business on that corner. Eating a Taquito gives a risk taker the benefit of making more, the garbage collector gains work, the print company makes more Taquito wrappers.
Government can not EVER make a positive benefit. Ever.
Say government decides to build a road. How do they do it? First, they steal money from you. Then, they hire their friends to do it at 150-1000% higher cost. Then they develop laws to create criminals on that road.
What happened to the money they stole from you to build that road? You could have used it to buy an apple. The fruit market owner would want more traffic in his area, so he would co-op with other business owners to build a good road. He'd get bids from many road builders. He'd find the one who builds long lasting roads with the best value.
No one seems to think "What could I do with the taxes stolen from me today?" Buy an apple? Invest in your business? Save for the future?
Government can not increase society's benefit once you figure what society lost from their theft and coercion.
Would you allow your neighbors to have an open cesspool? Would your perspective change if you were located in a city?
Great question! Yes and no.
My neighbors are free to have an open cesspool on their land. Would they devalue their property and lives? No. If I really fear neighbors with open cesspools, loud music, or 60' tall pink flamingos on their lawns, I can prevent it by living on 100 acres away from nutcases.
Living in the city shouldn't prevent me from having cesspools, loud music and pink flamingos. When you live so close to others, you need to trade the ability to live in peace for the convenience of living so close to businesses and services.
If I act in bad faith towards you or defraud thousands of dollars from your account, wouldn't you want legal recourse? Or do you think courts should be privitized too?
Excellent question.
In order to protect transactions between two par ies, government is a tool. I think its the worst tool. Before I enter into an agreement with you, I'll want a contract. We'd agree on an arbitration system and a neutral mediator. Why is government needed?
Examples could be that all people are equal, or all people have the right to free speech.
Equal how? Equal why? I'm not white, yet I have no problem if you disallow my race on your printed property. Someone else will. The idea that government can enforce equality is crazy.
so long as your actions aren't forcing someone else to do something against their will
I disagree! It's MY land. Take off your clothes woman, or leave. Only talk in rhyme or leave. I'm going to body cavity search your person on my property to check for bombs. Otherwise leave.
Does that make sense?
From a property rights perspective, yes.
Nothing you said defines what civil rights are.
The term is used by pro-authoritarians to dismiss property rights and replace them with government sanctioned permissions and forced duties.
Be kind to the poor. Open your business to the disabled. Don't be prejudice in whom you sell your product to. Make doorways 3 feet wide. No smoking. Be clothed.
It makes no sense to me. On private property (home, office, restaurant, whatever) the owner is king. Other owners are free to be more or less open to others. It is YOUR property that I am on, why should I dictate anything to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I was going to make note that I was linking to a site that contains many different authors, editors, and third party articles all on their site. Forgot to mention it.
LRC definitely has a political bend to it. So do doctors suing their patients for expressing their right to speak freely.
Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.
It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.
I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.
I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.
I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.
The American Dental Associations is no better.
First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.
I am not intending this reply as a troll.
I fully blame parents' inability to lord over their kids 24/7 as government's fault.
Households pay 50% in taxes at every level, versus 8% in the 60s. Mom has to work so the household can earn less still than just Dad working in the 60s (versus Mom and Dad to be PC).
Parents who spend through debt to keep up with the Joneses are still at fault. You CAN monitor your kids' activities 24/7, you just don't want to.
It does not take a village to raise a child; it takes a village to tax a household to death.
Parents need to get their priorities straight.
I first read your post and sort of agreed.
Then I realized my parent post already dismissed your opinions, at least in my opinion.
First, this law won't make parents more responsible. Will Little Johnny ask mom to buy the game, or ask Big Brother Billy or Older Friend Paul?
I do t ink this bill adds overhead to businesses that can't absorb the cost. Retailers now need to police games better out of Hot Coffee fears. They need to take register time to check IDs and slow down traffic. They need to police their own employees to make sure they're obeying the legal directives.
Want to bet the law isn't clearly worded? Hiring a business law lawyer is $300/hour, bet its more in California.
I can forsee many more added costs the more I ponder.
Whoa, weird!
:)
/. must be getting slow! :)
Check my post history, it'll get modded -1 Flamebait soon enough
Even weirder, I post from my h6315 PDA with 9.6k GPRS.
In my town, teens pay upwards of $10/pack for cigarettes. 21 year olds get up to $50 to make liquor runs for high school parties. The teen black market is very lucrative.
My firm belief is that this is the responsibility of the parents, not the State. Parents now have even less involvement in parenting due to these laws. Kids will still get the games.
The margin on video games is thin (5-10%). Adding the cost of policing adds another burden to the retailers, making them less competitive with the e-commerce sites. retail is a huge portion of a local economy, it is a shame to see more regulations on business owners.
Of course, in the long run the State wins: More tax money for enforcement positions and the red tape jobs they add. Added income from fines and penalties.
In the end, the consumers suffer, parents distance themselves more from their responsibility, and the State profits. Not a worthy solution in my opinion.
I am definitely NOT a Randroid by any means.
While Rand had some interesting ideas, so did Clinton and Bush at times.
I don't believe in the use of force by anyone against anyone else except in the direct defense of one's property or person. To me, taxation is force, and I just can't understand why laws are necessary at the federal level.
I'm not advocating shutting down ALL government (yet), just the federal level. It is my firm belief that the State-Countries that will be left will be MUCH more competitive for their constituents, and continued disassembly of lower level governments may not even be necessary.
Sure, my dream world is one without regulations and taxes, but I know it won't happen. There are so many ways of living below the radar and through the black markets (we all do with certain parts of our daily lives) and I've been walked on more by government than ever by thieves or conmen. Most of you are in the same boat, but just refuse to see it.
I guess I should be part of the system, keep voting for more and more stupid pork projects such as this. Enough pork will likely bankrupt the country, and I'll be safe with my gold and my property and my gun. After complete collapse, maybe then the people that survive will realize what a mistake they made.
Roads are indeed one of the hardest points for me to debate with even myself in terms of "who provides?"
As a multi-business owner, I can tell you that I'd rather be paying for the roads that come to my store from the highway, and I'd rather co-op it with other businesses by finding the BEST builder and maintainer of the roads. Today, we all pay hidden gas and other taxes for use of the roads, but the costs are crazy (I should know, I've worked for a highway contractor).
If we could should the average taxpayer what we pay in FEDERAL taxes per mile of driving, they'd be outraged.
I'll grant you the roads, this time, as a government responsibility, but how about we leave it up to the towns or maybe the precincts, rather than the State or Federal governments?
When it comes to constitutionality, it doesn't matter IF we need it, it doesn't matter WHY we need it, and it doesn't matter if the MAJORITY thinks we need it. The federal government has certain enumerated powers, and the rest is left to the States and the people.
Why can't private companies do it? $300M in every pork barrel program adds up quickly, and government just inflates more currency into creation whenever things get tight.
Our economy is heading to the gutter fast once the housing bubble bursts, and all these projects are part of the problem.
The National Archives are important, except so much that SHOULD be in the Archives is not, for whatever (illegal) reason:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger17.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers40.html
And some of those items took decades to make it. If they're going to keep certain government information in the Archives, make it available immediately.
I'm against the $300M bridge to nowhere -- I believe in privatized roads funded by local businesses, industry, and homeowners divisions.
I'm against ALL unconstitutional wars (every one since WWII has been unconstitutional).
Doesn't matter on slashdot, as any anti-social program post gets modded flamebait lately.
/. is for -- honest and open debate from all 3 sides of an issue.
Nonetheless, I believe the "Why?" question should be asked before AND after the fact, continuously. I don't believe we should just roll over when the majority says its ok to tax-and-spend. I've met many people through slashdot who have come to agree with the non-authoritarian positions I've stated in the past, and I love the debates I usually get before I get modded down.
That's what
Is this even necessary? $308M is a lot of money (maybe not for our federal government, but for the average taxpayer) and this really seems to be a waste to tax and spend on a program that is better solved by private companies.
Will we need old information in digital format? How many old books have we needed to save that were better saved just by reprinting them? How much information will the future need, and is it important to save just about everything just for memory sake?
It just sounds like pork to me. Competitive pork, yes, but still pork. Our government has kept Lockheed afloat for decades.
I'm trying to find out where in our Constitution does the Federal Government find an enumerated power to pay for this. It is outrageous -- there are numerous companies out there already attempting to archive old data. Why does our government even care? I bet it has more to do with raising taxes, creating new taxpayers to be paid on the government dole, and increasing unemployment figures.
Similar to Hazlitt's Broken Window Fallacy, taxes are NOT good for creating wealth for the country. Instead, they create profit for certain select individuals and reduce wealth for everyone else.
Our elected officials continue to finance deficit spending, which will only make us taxpayers and the next generations poorer.
Standard Oil was not a monopoly, that was a myth. It created wealth for people of all incomes:
l =56&sortorder=articledate
http://www.mises.org/story/388
The same is true for Microsoft -- creating wealth for not only the management and stockholders, but the entire region around them.
Most regulations do not come from trying to fix business, but trying to introduce controls on businesses so you can control them for personal gain.
http://www.mises.org/story/1852
http://www.mises.org/story/1749
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?contro
Three decent articles about the effects of regulations.
It is a very convoluted issue, but I can tell you from experience (in manufacturing and retail, both my businesses) that regulations OFTEN are created in order to help a hidden third party. In the skateboard business that I own, I see numerous stores lobbying towns for helmet laws. "Helmet laws were created because kids were dying without them" might be said 20 years from now, when we forget who the store was that sold the helmets.
This is why I read at 0 so I can find decent posts such as yours.
First, I've been to Nike's "sweatshops" and you'd be surprised how few employees consider it a sweatshop compared to starving and dying in a country with little opportunity. You would also be surprised how many ex-sweatshop employees saved enough money to move to another country with better opportunities.
People are not forced to do any job at gunpoint by Nike or by any other corporation. Yet I am forced to pay 1/2 my wages to a monopoly with the threat of prison. Who runs the sweatshop?
Nader does the job people need him to do with his watchdog group. With the Internet and viral-marketing campaigns, it isn't that hard to disperse information about bad companies, and it isn't that hard to keep track of companies real time. Underwriter's Laboratories is the ultimate free market watchdog group. They stamp items that meet their safety approval, and retailers don't stock non-UL merchandise if they know what is good for them. Why is the UL succesful, yet the FDA and USDA can't get anything right?
Sorry for the late post, I can generally only read from my PDA/GPRS and I couldn't reconnect.
You're generally right because we don't need arbitrators as much, but I do forsee a better arbitration based on e-bay and slashdot's karma.
First, arbitration companies and contract insurance can guarantee payment. If either or both parties have "bad karma" or "bad feedback" on previous contracts, the insurance will be higher, naturally. If they both have GOOD karma or good feedback, then the insurance will be lower. I'm sure numerous contract insurers will pop up, and I'm sure that good arbitration companies will also offer these policies at low rates.
Secondly, today's arbitration system is manipulated completely by those in law. The system is so convoluted that nothing gets resolved in a timely fashion or in a cheap manner. Even bounced checks are hard to enforce. In a free market, I would believe that people would have much less ability to repeatedly screw over others.
In the long run, I don't see any hope for our current monopoly on justice. You can't win unless you're wealthy. In a free market, even the poorest person will still be able to purchase contract insurance in the event that the other party screws them over, or in the event that they can't finish the contract.
The difference is that when its a business, competition eventually provides a safer product. Company A bends the rules and gets caught, Company B plays fair and grows.
With government, there IS no competition. They are a monopoly, and bending the rules leads to a few outcomes:
A. No one gets caught
B. Someone gets caught, an elected official gets thrown out, and the new official comes in asking for more money to fix the problem.
C. Someone gets caught, and new laws are created to "police the problem" with more red tape in the future for everyone.
I'm not sure that government is ever the answer once you factor in that they are not only a monopoly, but they can use force to enforce that monopoly.
I always seem to get modded troll based on my anti-socialist position.
First, my parents were the poorest people in my town. I didn't find wealth until I created it myself, without using any government grants or welfare dole.
Second, companies don't exist to make money. They exist to make wealth. There is a difference. Companies that offer wealth to their customers in the form of long term happiness in exchange for giving up their wealth of money, tend to prosper. Those who rip people off tend to fail. Also, a company has to make sure their employees see added wealth in exchange for their time, or they lose those good employees.
Birth defects from what? Who really knows what causes birth defects. Government flouride treatments cause defects and rotting teeth, but we support those. Government mandates scarcity in doctors and researchers in the form of regulation of colleges and grants, yet more doctors and researchers could find more cures for what ails us.
If one company profits on creating more death and birth defects, another company will find out about it and let you know. But if government profits on the same, they'll just ask for more money to combat what is obvious a "social problem."
Don't start touting government as the one-size-fits-all savior. We all would be far better off with far smaller government. Marx and Keynes were proven wrong years before they were even born, but it seems to be that opinions such as mine are irrelevant and troll-ful because the opinions exist and refute the ideaology of the average slashdotter.
First, I'm no libertarian.
Secondly, ALL risk review requires sickness and death. Otherwise, it wouldn't be considered risky.
To say that the market requires death before changes are made is ridiculous. How many people get sick, go hungry, or even die because of government regulations and taxes?
The free market creates wealth opportunities for everyone at every level. Government regulation and taxation creates profits for the rich and connected at the expense of the poor. No free market transaction forces the poor to give to the connected. None.
If you truly believe that government policies help the poor and the environment and the sick, read this article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ravet1.html
Lovely work of your fine elected officials in making your life better.
Come on, New Orleans? A city whose problems were grown more out of government incompetence than free market policy?
Want to rebuild New Orleans to be a Mecca of financial equity and help the impoverished become middle class? Create a 10-year lifting of all regulations and taxes.
You'll see entrepreneurs moving in and rebuilding. With today's rebuilding, it is all going to focus on wealth transfer from the responsible to the irresponsible. Government will add more people to the dole, and fewer people with actually desire to help the surrounding population will show up to do so.
Don't start on New Orleans. You know it is a problem created by bad government management at all levels, and the welfare state created the poverty that existed pre-Katrina.
Want to know what caused that deadly fire? Over-regulating. There are two ways to get around government regulations in the future to prevent these accidents:
1. Remove ALL regulations pertaining to fire code and let the INSURANCE companies dictate what is safe and what isn't. When fire becomes a financial burden, safety will go up. Businesses that don't insure are likely to go out of business with the smallest mishap or mistake. Removing government protection of individuals through the ridiculous thing called incorporation would also increase a person's fear of losing everything and would insure.
2. Let insurance companies realize the risk they face. Today, I can get business insurance over the phone. The insurance companies assume a certain amount of risk based on the "city code" that businesses are assumed to follow. Everyone knows you can get around city code with a little cash in the hand of the inspector.
If insurance companies have to set their own code, and also have to self inspect, you'll see more businesses run safer.
City code regulations only force competition from entering a market. The ones who have been there the longest tend to know the inspectors and tend to know how to work around it.
These "safety" regulations are also evident in speed limits (better set by insurance companies for risk reduction than by cities for income-through-tickets), food quality regulations, and even household safety/accident prevention.
"Government program fails to help taxed consumers."
"Law turns rare victims into frequent ones."
"Elected officials support their real constituents."
When has any regulation on industry regulated anyone but the non-business owner? All regulations are created for one reason: scarcity.
Government created scarcity increases profits by decreasing wealth. Regulations keep favored businesses safe from new competition.
There are many free market programs to reduce phone spam. On my cell, I create favored call lists and "everyone else." The everyone else ring tone is silent. If a voice mail confirms I missed a favored caller, I'll add them to the ring list.
No one needs any form of regulation from government at any level as they all create favoritism and don't fix any problem. Even pollution regulations are better controlled by the free market. Heavy polluters get blasted by watchdog groups, cleaner emitters get praised and consumers make the decision who succeeds and who fails.
The link to 'per se' is great. I type per se often only to remove it so I don't have to define it.
A government's ultimate task is to put ((relatively) minor) restrictions on the citizens (individual or all) for the benefit of the whole society.
I can't agree with Hobbes here. The country is better defined as billions of decisions made every minute. Most decisions made have no thinking of "is this legal?"
Society is benefited from these billions of decisions in that opportunities grow when decisions are made. Someone buying fruit, someone smoking a joint, someone mowing a lawn, someone raping a neighbor.
Which decisions promote growth of the society and which don't? The bad decisions are always regarding taking or breaking someone's property. Those decisions always reduced society's benefits. Every othet decision increases the benefits society gets. Crossing the street gives a risk taker the benefit of opening a business on that corner. Eating a Taquito gives a risk taker the benefit of making more, the garbage collector gains work, the print company makes more Taquito wrappers.
Government can not EVER make a positive benefit. Ever.
Say government decides to build a road. How do they do it? First, they steal money from you. Then, they hire their friends to do it at 150-1000% higher cost. Then they develop laws to create criminals on that road.
What happened to the money they stole from you to build that road? You could have used it to buy an apple. The fruit market owner would want more traffic in his area, so he would co-op with other business owners to build a good road. He'd get bids from many road builders. He'd find the one who builds long lasting roads with the best value.
No one seems to think "What could I do with the taxes stolen from me today?" Buy an apple? Invest in your business? Save for the future?
Government can not increase society's benefit once you figure what society lost from their theft and coercion.
Would you allow your neighbors to have an open cesspool? Would your perspective change if you were located in a city?
Great question! Yes and no.
My neighbors are free to have an open cesspool on their land. Would they devalue their property and lives? No. If I really fear neighbors with open cesspools, loud music, or 60' tall pink flamingos on their lawns, I can prevent it by living on 100 acres away from nutcases.
Living in the city shouldn't prevent me from having cesspools, loud music and pink flamingos. When you live so close to others, you need to trade the ability to live in peace for the convenience of living so close to businesses and services.
If I act in bad faith towards you or defraud thousands of dollars from your account, wouldn't you want legal recourse? Or do you think courts should be privitized too?
Excellent question.
In order to protect transactions between two par ies, government is a tool. I think its the worst tool. Before I enter into an agreement with you, I'll want a contract. We'd agree on an arbitration system and a neutral mediator. Why is government needed?
Huh? If I loan you, $100, you have $100 to stimulate the economy or generate more money/happiness for yourself.
You can spend $100 on Marx's books (stimulates the book industry)
You can spend $100 screening your own Che T-shirts to sell for $300.
You can spend $100 on buying your marijuana, stimulating the drug economy or reselling it for $200.
You can spend $100 on posters and signs for your Vote Nader rally, stimulating the paper industry.
You can spend $100 on your porn sites, stimulating yourself and the internet industry.
And my post gets modded troll. My post had nothing but one ad hominem, but the socialist high school mods here don't agree with me, so I'm a troll.
Thanks for the reply!
Examples could be that all people are equal, or all people have the right to free speech.
Equal how? Equal why? I'm not white, yet I have no problem if you disallow my race on your printed property. Someone else will. The idea that government can enforce equality is crazy.
so long as your actions aren't forcing someone else to do something against their will
I disagree! It's MY land. Take off your clothes woman, or leave. Only talk in rhyme or leave. I'm going to body cavity search your person on my property to check for bombs. Otherwise leave.
Does that make sense?
From a property rights perspective, yes.
Nothing you said defines what civil rights are.
The term is used by pro-authoritarians to dismiss property rights and replace them with government sanctioned permissions and forced duties.
Be kind to the poor. Open your business to the disabled. Don't be prejudice in whom you sell your product to. Make doorways 3 feet wide. No smoking. Be clothed.
It makes no sense to me. On private property (home, office, restaurant, whatever) the owner is king. Other owners are free to be more or less open to others. It is YOUR property that I am on, why should I dictate anything to you?